Ironically, while governments run hundreds of schemes aimed at women’s financial empowerment, the legal system still assumes dependency at the time of marital breakdown. This contradiction raises a serious question: Is the law truly empowering women, or is it preserving outdated assumptions?

“This is dependency not empowerment”, Kumar S Ratan

This blog argues for a much-needed reform – Provision of Zero Alimony for Short-Term Marriages.

Today’s Time

• Women participate actively in the workforce
• Remarriage is increasingly common and socially accepted
• Financial independence is no longer an exception

Still our laws function as if every marriage permanently disables a woman’s ability to earn. On contrary that short term marriages which has lasted in few months or in few years, has no much impact on spouse finance, it do not have any significant impact on their career.

Provision of alimony in short marriages often turn into:

• A pressure tactic during divorce negotiations
• A means of financial extortion
• A tool to harass not just the husband, but also his family

This misuse of process of law does not protect women—but it damages the credibility of genuine cases and destroys families through prolonged legal conflict.

Empowerment Vs Permanent Dependency

If a woman is capable to manage business or corporate life are also capable of rebuilding their lives, like men. Allowing women to get a lifetime alimony from husband is like making them permanent dependent on their ex-husband’s hard earned money.

So where there is dependency there is no empowerment, we believe.

Zero Alimony is Justice

Demanding Zero Alimony for short-term marriages is not anti-women. It is pro-justice, pro-equality, and pro-reform.

Laws must protect the vulnerable—but they must also prevent misuse. Law must reflect current social realities, not outdated stereotypes.

Allegations by Wife:

• Dowry demands (car, fridge, LED TV) started immediately.
• Physical abuse and mental harassment by husband.
• Husband allegedly had an affair with Poonam Kumari.
• Claimed husband earns over ₹2 lakh/month from salary, business, and rental income.

Husband’s Defense:

Marriage solemn as per tribal (Oraon) customs, not Hindu Marriage Act.

• Wife stayed only one month post-marriage, then left voluntarily.
• Alleged she aborted pregnancy without his consent.
• Filed divorce and a theft case against her.
• Claimed he made efforts for reconciliation, but she demanded ₹75 lakh as lifetime alimony.
• Asserted wife re-married (unconfirmed but stated by witness).

Court’s Observations:

• Wife denied pregnancy, but medical evidence (Dr. Indu Chouhan’s prescription) proved otherwise.
• She refused to return, despite husband’s repeated requests and even rejected reconciliation during mediation.
• Her testimony was inconsistent, and allegations of abuse and adultery were not substantiated.
• Court found that she left her husband without sufficient reason.

Important Point– Section 125(4) CrPC:

A wife is not entitled to maintenance if: (No Maintenance to wife)

• She is living in adultery,
• She refuses to live with her husband without sufficient reason,
• They are living separately by mutual consent.
• Since the Court ruled she left without sufficient reason, maintenance was denied.

Final Verdict:

The court set aside the Maintenance order of ₹15,000/month (issued earlier by Family Court), the Criminal Revision allowed in favor of the husband.

Background:

The case involved Vijay Kumar, who challenged the grant of maintenance to his wife, Harsh Lata Aggarwal, claiming she was capable of maintaining herself. The wife had applied for maintenance during ongoing matrimonial proceedings.

Key Observations:

• The Court noted that Harsh Lata was well-educated, having earned a B.Ed. degree and had previously worked as a teacher.
• She voluntarily left her job and failed to justify why she could not work again.
• Courts emphasized that maintenance is not a means to idle comfort, especially when the person seeking it is qualified and employable.

Final Ruling:

The Delhi High Court set aside the lower court’s order that had granted her maintenance.

It ruled that she was not entitled to maintenance as she deliberately chose not to work despite being fit and qualified.

Why This Matters:

This ruling reinforces a key legal principle — maintenance is meant for those genuinely unable to maintain themselves, not for those who are qualified but choose not to work. The case sets an example where the court looked at employability, not just marital status, when deciding on financial support.

Citation:

Vijay Kumar vs. Harsh Lata Aggarwal, Delhi High Court, decided in 2008.
Case Reference: 2008:DHC:4986

The case involved Bhushan Kumar Meen, who challenged the order directing him to pay ₹10,000 per month as interim maintenance to his estranged wife, Mansi Meen, despite his net take-home salary being just ₹9,000, after deductions including a heavy home loan EMI of over ₹21,000.

Bhushan argued that the interim maintenance was more than his actual take-home salary and that his wife, being well-educated, was capable of earning and maintaining herself.

The wife, however, maintained that given the husband’s gross salary and her own current unemployment, the maintenance was justified.

“we cannot also shut our eyes to the fact that at present the respondent-wife is not employed or at least there is nothing on record to indicate she is employed in any gainful work. However, having regard to the qualifications that she possesses, there is no reason why she ought not to be in a position to also maintain herself in the future.”, SC observed

The Supreme Court Held:

Recognizing the financial strain on the husband, the Court reduced the interim maintenance to ₹5,000 per month.

• It observed that while the wife was currently unemployed, her qualifications indicated that she could earn in the future.
• The Court emphasized that maintenance should be reasonable and within the paying capacity of the husband.
• It also allowed the recalculation of arrears based on the revised amount and gave the husband time to clear dues in installments.

Citation:

Bhushan Kumar Meen vs. Mansi Meen @ Harpreet Kaur, Criminal Appeal No. 879 of 2009, decided by the Supreme Court of India on April 28, 2009. Bench: Justice Altamas Kabir and Justice Cyriac Joseph.

The new format will be applied in the case, if the parties has not submitted the affidavit of income, expenditure and assets. The revised directions and formats will be applied in all acts dealing with maintenance amount in matrimonial cases under “Hindu Marriage Act, 1955; Protection of Women from Domestic Violence Act, 2005; Section 125 Cr.P.C; Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956; Special Marriage Act, 1954; Indian Divorce Act, 1869; Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 and Hindu Minority and Guardianship Act, 1956.”

The bench directed the family court Principal Judge, to list the year old pending cases. The court has also directed to decide the maintenance amount after “hearing the parties” if there is delay in filing affidavit.

“If any party delays in filing of the affidavit of assets, income and expenditure or the affidavit filed by a party is not in terms of these directions or a party delays the disclosure of further information/documents and the delay is causing hardship, the Court is at liberty to fix ad-interim maintenance after hearing the parties.”

Some of the directions issued by the bench are as follows:

• “the Court may fix ad-interim maintenance on the basis of the admitted documents pending filing of the affidavit of the assets, income and expenditure by both the parties.”
• “a party delays the disclosure of further information/documents and the delay is causing hardship, the Court is at liberty to fix ad-interim maintenance after hearing the parties.”
• “If the statements made in affidavit of assets, income and expenditure are found to be incorrect, the Court shall consider its effect by drawing an adverse inference or imposing additional cost, while fixing the maintenance.”
• “At the time of issuing notice on the petition for dissolution of marriage, the Court shall consider directing the petitioner to deposit such sum”
• “At the time of passing a decree of divorce, the Court shall bring to the notice of the concerned party, as the case may be, that he/she can claim permanent alimony without prejudice to his/her right to challenge the decree of divorce”
• “The affidavit of assets, income and expenditure is to be treated as guidelines to determine the true financial capacity/status of the parties. The Courts are at liberty to determine the nature and extent of information/documents necessary and to direct the parties to disclose relevant information and documents to determine their financial capacity/status.”